Yes, it would change my opinion of it. I wouldn't become a strong supporter because I don't see any value in it, but a rigorous proof that this proposal could not possibly introduce regressions to any existing codebases would change my opinion from "strongly against" to "doesn't matter to me, I'll stop arguing against it and go get my real work done".
-Carl From: Xiaodi Wu <[email protected]> To: Carl Brown1/US/IBM@IBM Cc: Drew Crawford <[email protected]>, Jonathan Hull <[email protected]>, swift-evolution <[email protected]> Date: 03/25/2017 12:33 AM Subject: Re: [swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0159: Fix Private Access Levels Would it change your opinion on the proposal? On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 12:10 AM, Carl Brown1 <[email protected]> wrote: I would very much like to see your proof that the resultant code is unchanged in an arbitrary codebase. -Carl Inactive hide details for Xiaodi Wu ---03/25/2017 12:01:26 AM---On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 11:55 PM, Carl Brown1 <[email protected] Wu ---03/25/2017 12:01:26 AM---On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 11:55 PM, Carl Brown1 <[email protected]> wrote: > Maybe this is the core From: Xiaodi Wu <[email protected]> To: Carl Brown1/US/IBM@IBM Cc: Drew Crawford <[email protected]>, Jonathan Hull < [email protected]>, swift-evolution <[email protected]> Date: 03/25/2017 12:01 AM Subject: Re: [swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0159: Fix Private Access Levels On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 11:55 PM, Carl Brown1 <[email protected]> wrote: My point is that, in rolling back the specific portion of SE-0025, case-sensitive find-and-replace will be the trickiest thing in most codebases, save those that result in invalid redeclarations. The behavior of the resultant code is, unless I'm mistaken, provably unchanged.
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
